Would Better PR Be Beneficial In Getting The Message Across To The General Public

[Tamara]

The very title of this thread is revealing.

Why is great importance attached to making sure everyone knows what [the consensus] currently claim to be happening.?

This is part of the PR problem - in that it starts to seem like a desire to indoctrinate or religious zeal.

The ordinary person can't do anything much to reduce CO2 apart from use energy thoughtfully, which given the cost most of us do anyway.

We are seeing continual changes in emphasis in what 'we know' or think we know to be true about the climate system and recently what was thought to be likely ten years ago is looking way off target. 

Why is this subject which in the real world won't make the slightest difference to most people given such bizarre prominence when we don't even have sound evidence that warming is happening at predicted rates or that it would be much of a problem if it were.

It is not difficult to suspect some other motives are at work in this, and they are not all about the greater good but often related to securing funding for alternative energy projects which are now a huge industry grabbing billions from the public purse.

I think you make some very good points, and whether one likes it or not, you are quite right to say that the ordinary person is limited as to what they can do beyond their own sensible economies of energy and prudent recyling and sustainable practices.

 

There are ardent AGW sceptics on this very message board that exist widely too outside of the cyber bubble of Net Weather who are as prudent and diligent about careful environmental practices as any anthropromorphic climate supporter claims everyone should be. Often the latter convey this message in a rather sanctimoneous way - so the rather doctrinal and holier than thou impression regretfully has some merit, and it is not intended to be inflammatory to say so, but sadly realistic. Bearing in mind these environmental practices address any contingency plan for alleged AGW (despite the number of folk who practice sound environmental policy but are to be convinced of artificial climate warming theory) then why the need for any happy clappy preaching and forewarning of impending doom for us anyway for our neglect, when ordinary folk are mostly addressing that neglect in a good way on a routine level, whatever factors they believe influence our climate?

 

The fact that people get the big picture, whatever their climate beliefs, immediately illustrates how unecessary and spurious, and what a nonsense the PR mantra is.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Tamara Road

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm still out on the' Raised beach offerings' BFTV? The Fetch would suggest regional open water but the wood types would necessitate ice transport (or they would have sunk) to get them from point of origin to Beach?

 

During our glacial epoch thermal maximum I would expect weather systems to have a little more 'Oomph' to them (as we are finding with our weather today!) so local storms pushing high swells does not trouble me nor does Tsunami waves from collapsing ice, mid basin, from the failing glacial cover either for that matter?

 

EDIT: T.R., the point of improving the Climate science 'PR' is to enable their message the same weight as the paid PR of the Faux Sceptics side? With such a wealth of evidence from climate science giving each paper the gloss that Faux science does to their cherry picked doozies will take a committed effort and guidance. 

Edited May 4, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Tamara]

I'm still out on the' Raised beach offerings' BFTV? The Fetch would suggest regional open water but the wood types would necessitate ice transport (or they would have sunk) to get them from point of origin to Beach?

 

During our glacial epoch thermal maximum I would expect weather systems to have a little more 'Oomph' to them (as we are finding with our weather today!) so local storms pushing high swells does not trouble me nor does Tsunami waves from collapsing ice, mid basin, from the failing glacial cover either for that matter?

 

EDIT: T.R., the point of improving the Climate science 'PR' is to enable their message the same weight as the paid PR of the Faux Sceptics side? With such a wealth of evidence from climate science giving each paper the gloss that Faux science does to their cherry picked doozies will take a committed effort and guidance. 

Sorry GW, there are far too many made up labels and caricatures in that second paragraph I haven't a clue what you are talking about

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm glad that I'm impervious to 'religious zeal' then, 4...

 

The claims of religious zeal are amusing, considering the strong religious influence in the sceptic/denier community.

 

I find when debating with sceptics/deniers, I encounter many of the same tactics used by the fundamentalist Christians

• the same dodging of basic questions
• abandonment of logic
• claims of conspiracy
• claims of having facts while demonstrating nothing other than feeling/faith
• obvious and wilful cherry picking of information
• appeals to emotion 
• Oh, and of course, the fact that so many sceptic/fundamentalist will always back up the views of their fellow sceptic/fundamentalist, no matter how contradictory and silly they are.

An domhain, an domhain...

[Gray-Wolf]

So, lets draw back to the Question posed? Would better PR be a help?

 

With so many folk ( in the developed world) living such a fast paced life then 'soundbites' appear to be what most take away from any news report. As someone engaged in trying to untangle the truth from the lies the Faux Sceptic 'soundbites are all that rattle around my head. Maybe it's because they were cleverly crafted to do such a job or maybe they are just 'outed' at such frequent intervals that you can't help but pick them up (like the 'Summer Hit' from Ibiza)?

 

The only soundbites  have from mainstream science ,doing a similar thing in my head, are the one's the Faux sceptics took out of context and treated in the same way as their 'soundbites' as such any 'non-thinking' person, when cornered on the subject, will try and redeem their intellectual status by reeling off the things first to mind (and justify them later) and these are those 'common soundbites' ground into their sub-conscious. Push the person further (into justification) and they become defensive (as they know they do not know the answers but do not wish to appear shallow or Sheeple like). Had they a formed opinion then their response would not have been so at odds with their understanding?

 

The Job of science is to inform the people of the current situation (Yes!, we are still warming, Yes! sea levels are rising and now 'melt' is the biggest contributor, Yes! CO2 is at a high not seen in 800,000yrs, Yes!, permafrost ,glaciers, Ice sheets, sea ice is melting, No! Antarctica's slight increase in winter Sea ice does not 'offset' Arctic losses nor balance mass loss from either ice sheet, No! Antarctica is not cooling......)

[Methuselah]

But, like always, both extremes suffer the same malady; they never shy away from their attempts to portray 'agnostics' as faithless, benighted nutters...

[Tamara]

The claims of religious zeal are amusing, considering the strong religious influence in the sceptic/denier community.

 

I find when debating with sceptics/deniers, I encounter many of the same tactics used by the fundamentalist Christians

• the same dodging of basic questions
• abandonment of logic
• claims of conspiracy
• claims of having facts while demonstrating nothing other than feeling/faith
• obvious and wilful cherry picking of information
• appeals to emotion 
• Oh, and of course, the fact that so many sceptic/fundamentalist will always back up the views of their fellow sceptic/fundamentalist, no matter how contradictory and silly they are.

An domhain, an domhain...

Putting aside the semantics over the term 'religious zeal' the post 4wd made and my reply to him were perfectly reasoned wrt to the topic, so there was no need for your response in my humble little opinion

 

Its a nice weekend and much else to do away from here, so a good time to leave this thread anyway. I'll maybe post about the off topic stratosphere material discussed a couple of days ago in another more relevant thread after the holiday weekend where the exchanges hopefully will be more constructive.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Putting aside the semantics over the term 'religious zeal' the post 4wd made and my reply to him were perfectly reasoned wrt to the topic, so there was no need for your response in my humble little opinion

 

Its a nice weekend and much else to do away from here, so a good time to leave this thread anyway. I'll maybe post about the off topic stratosphere material discussed a couple of days ago in another more relevant thread after the holiday weekend where the exchanges hopefully will be more constructive.

 

Amazing how people can see a single post as meaning two completely different things!

 

Just making some comparisons anyway, both groups are engaged in campaigns against science, and both use very similar tactics.

 

Enjoy your weekend.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9

 

Above goes a long way to showing what i refered to in my post above Once Republicans are allowed to move beyond the 'Fox News Soundbites' and get into the real science they concede that action is necessary to spare us from the worst of what we have set into motion.

 

With folks still talking as though the science is 'flawed' and that we have no idea of the implications even in our Section you have to admire the job done on them by 'The Faux Sceptics' (and human nature?).

[pottyprof]

It's the presence of beach ridges on the Greenland north coast, that require wave action from a long fetch (possibly back to the N Pole) that's the strongest evidence for ice free conditions. It certainly isn't confirmed, but it does seem likely.

Now that's where I've been for many years. There had to be an ice free/virtually ice free phase for this to happen. It is this kind of evidence that makes me question the whole Arctic ice problem. How long ago this was, to what extent and what exactly caused this phase is open to a lot of discussion. It has been touched upon on these boards before but never got any further than a few thoughts and was buried under an avalanche of 'it can't be so as it doesn't fit the theory'. Admittedly it may be a red herring laid out by a team of road laying 'deniers' or ancient aliens but it is something that has to be taken seriously as a piece of the jigsaw. It's obvious what caused it. It happens on beaches all over the world. Why won't they just say what happened?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Now that's where I've been for many years. There had to be an ice free/virtually ice free phase for this to happen. It is this kind of evidence that makes me question the whole Arctic ice problem. How long ago this was, to what extent and what exactly caused this phase is open to a lot of discussion. It has been touched upon on these boards before but never got any further than a few thoughts and was buried under an avalanche of 'it can't be so as it doesn't fit the theory'. Admittedly it may be a red herring laid out by a team of road laying 'deniers' or ancient aliens but it is something that has to be taken seriously as a piece of the jigsaw. It's obvious what caused it. It happens on beaches all over the world. Why won't they just say what happened?

 

I not sure what issue you're raising here? The scientists that did that study and all the reports I read based on it all said that sea ice then was likely lower than today, with some suggestions of seasonal ice.

From what I can remember, the authors found that when there was less ice to the north of Greenland, there was more near Ellesmere Island. This suggests circulation changes, which may have driven the sea ice towards Ellesmere Island rather than the Greenland north coast, leaving open water to its north.

 

I'm guessing that's why there is no definite confirmation of seasonal sea ice from that time.

 

EDIT: Here's a piece on the work they did http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/PDF/Funder2011.pdf

Had a glance through it, looks interesting.

Edited May 4, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Gray-Wolf]

Which is why you have to look at other evidence that shows conditions were not like today's?

 

Be this Ice shelf evidence or snow patch evidence or glacial moraine positioning etc all point to continuous deep cold allowing both retention and creation of those features? Regional difference in 'ice extent norm' does support all the evidence so rather than folk 'dismissing because it does not fit the theory' folk not accepting the ice free supposition are being far more inquisitive than those who wish for 'ice free' conditions post last glaciation?

 

As BFTV points out we have seen changes in ocean currents over the intervening period so it would good to see paleo plots to figure if we have an extension of the N.A.D. into the Basin at that time?

 

We know the NW corner has gone from ice cliffs and blocked entry to the basin to main exit for 3m+ 'older ice' from the basin in just 200yrs.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

I've read some of Delingpole's rubbish and he's up there with Monckton.

 

How climate scientists are being framed

To turn the public off climate change, right-wing media is blaming scientists for hurting kids and being puppets of totalitarianism

 

Have you seen the spirited new game being played by a few right-wing columnists in high profile media outlets of late?

 

The game is called "You've been framed" and it's available at a toyshop or conservative-leaning news outlet in an alternative reality near you.

Another name for this game might be "What's the most offensive and ridiculous thing we can get away with saying about climate scientists?"

 

To play, you need to first pretend thousands of studies, inquiries and reports into climate change and the science behind it never happened.

You also need to accept a conspiracy theory so elaborate it would make the forger of Barack Obama's birth certificate green with envy. The New World Order might also be seriously cheesed off.

 

Then, you should school yourself in a tried and tested technique known as "framing" so that your reader associates your subject – in this case climate science – with something distasteful.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/02/how-climate-scientists-being-framed?CMP=twt_gu

Edited May 4, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

But - whatever might transpire on Greenland itself - the Arctic sea-ice is melting at an alarming rate. And that is observation, not theory...

[knocker]

Extreme weather is making Americans climate-change believers, study finds

WASHINGTON – A year of strange and often devastating weather that included extreme hurricanes, drought and wildfires appears to have increased the number of Americans who want government action on climate change, a new study shows.

 

Unfortunately, researchers say, this higher level of global-warming awareness is not translating into political action.

 

 

http://www.canada.com/news/world/Extreme+weather+making+Americans+climate+change+believers+study/8335360/story.html

Edited May 5, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Nothing really to do with this thread but I thought the historical context may be of interest.

 

How cold hearts and ice ages kindled the science of warming

In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius took off into the atmosphere. Or at least into an immense calculation about the atmosphere that might distract him from having divorced his wife Sofia, who had taken custody of their baby son Olof. He looked to the skies to settle a key argument: How can landscapes around the world show evidence of ice scraping over it?

 

 

http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/how-cold-hearts-and-ice-ages-kindled-the-science-of-warming/

[stewfox]

But - whatever might transpire on Greenland itself - the Arctic sea-ice is melting at an alarming rate. And that is observation, not theory...

 

Good PR though would add 'for a few weeks in the summer' as that would reflect the 'observation'.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Good PR though would add 'for a few weeks in the summer' as that would reflect the 'observation'.

 

Not really. A few months is more accurate, perhaps, and only if you're looking at extent/area. With volume, which is a better measure of ice loss, ABNS's post is perfectly valid.

Edited May 5, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[stewfox]

Not really. A few months is more accurate, perhaps, and only if you're looking at extent/area. With volume, which is a better measure of ice loss, ABNS's post is perfectly valid.

 

So good PR is to announce "the Arctic sea-ice is melting at an alarming rate". ??

 

Its misleading and cherry picking . Its why the Green party now often get only 2% of the vote.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Its poor PR as what is 'alarming' more tourism up there ?

[Methuselah]

So good PR is to announce "the Arctic sea-ice is melting at an alarming rate". ??

 

Its misleading and cherry picking . Its why the Green party now often get only 2% of the vote.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Its poor PR as what is 'alarming' more tourism up there ?

I suppose I should have said 'appreciable'? Which on average year-on-year it is...I'll leave the politics to the politicians.

Edited May 5, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[BornFromTheVoid]

So good PR is to announce "the Arctic sea-ice is melting at an alarming rate". ??

 

Its misleading and cherry picking . Its why the Green party now often get only 2% of the vote.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Its poor PR as what is 'alarming' more tourism up there ?

 

You're avoiding the point. The loss is alarming. It's altering the climate, changing the ecosystem and quickly taking the environment there to state not seen in thousands of years.

How is it cherry picking when it's true?

[Methuselah]

You're avoiding the point. The loss is alarming. It's altering the climate, changing the ecosystem and quickly taking the environment there to state not seen in thousands of years.

How is it cherry picking when it's true?

Aye; and science looks for data. We can leave 'upsetting the tourist industry' to the politicians...

[4wd]

The AGW alarmists were only a few years back stating that Scottish and indeed Alpine ski industries were doomed and not  something which should be invested in.
That is the very definition of bad PR - on the back of over-confident predictions.

Edited May 5, 2013 by 4wd

[BornFromTheVoid]

The AGW alarmists were only a few years back stating that Scottish and indeed Alpine ski industries were doomed and not  something which should be invested in.

That is the very definition of bad PR - on the back of over-confident predictions.

 

So just the alarmists, not the scientists?

[Polar Maritime]

The AGW alarmists were only a few years back stating that Scottish and indeed Alpine ski industries were doomed and not  something which should be invested in.

That is the very definition of bad PR - on the back of over-confident predictions.

 

Which scientists predicted this with evidence ?, for the PR to print ?

 

You beat me to it BFTV !

Edited May 5, 2013 by Polar Maritime